Foreign Policy and Revolutions

Deborah Venable



Most folks probably think foreign policy should be left up to the most intelligent among us, because the subject is so dry and so complicated that the average Joe just wouldn’t have any credible answers.  After all, these people who are ultimately put in charge of America’s foreign policy have studiously learned their craft in the classrooms of great thinkers who populate the best educational institutions all over the world.  None of them are capable of functioning without huge staffs of starry-eyed graduates who learned their lessons the same way.  My point is that foreign policy and diplomacy jobs, for the most part, require degrees from a standardized education. 


This goes entirely against the grain of America’s original foreign policy experts.  Those people who had lived and traveled all over the world, on their own dimes, and had earned much of their education from self-study with little standardization applied.  They trained their small supporting staffs themselves, and trusted more in their own instincts than those of adoring subordinates.  And one other thing they had a firm grasp on was a set of personal principles fired in the kiln of their newfound political liberty – their own revolution.


Then you had an unleashed press that could and did report accurately and pontificate unabashedly the facts and opinions without an ever-present grain of poll-driven salt.  People said what they meant and meant what they said, and morality was the great nation builder.  Those who refused to use it were not as credible as those who embraced it.


Fast forward to this time in our dangerous world where America has survived every plague upon it but the one we are now facing.  Morality has no meaning or credibility, and, therefore, there is no benchmark from which to pursue foreign policy success.  As our internal political affairs crumble from a lack of the same thing, how can we expect our elected and appointed “leaders” to make and carry American policy into the rest of the world?  When homegrown progressive elites are inciting revolution in our own country, why would we think that our wishes on foreign policy would be honored elsewhere?


If the radical Islamist uprisings (some would call them revolutions) now going on in Europe, Asia, Africa, (and the Middle East) are successful, it is only a matter of time before America would be a forgotten experiment in self-rule.  I refuse to throw around the popular word, “democracy” because that is not what secures liberty for a society.  Until we get the lexicon right, we will never have a successful foreign policy.


Among the popular opinion of those who can’t be bothered to think about all the ramifications of an unsuccessful foreign policy for America, the driving theme seems to be that America is no better place to be than any other.  (Notice, however, that they are not causing great traffic jams trying to leave.)  These folks would have us hope and change ourselves into the same kind of failed societies that we see all around the globe, but they do not bother to try to understand exactly what that would mean.  They hold up government supplied healthcare, for example, as a more compassionate system than anything capitalism could conjure up.  Never mind that this socialistic example plays right into the hands of all kinds of revolutionaries, who also think capitalism has failed and that wealth it created must be redistributed (whatever that means) they are also the first to buy into the argument that foreign cries for democracy should be supported by our capitalistic efforts at all cost.  Anybody else see an irony here?


Bottom line is that American foreign policy has only one requirement, and that is whatever is good for American security.  Wonder if they teach that in foreign policy school these days?


Believe it or not, the whole concept of successful foreign policy is based on capitalistic principles.  Investments should only be made based on the projection of successful returns on those investments.  No – never mind – I know they haven’t been teaching THAT for a very long time. 


Anyone, (including Muslim extremists and Marxist agitators) sitting around thinking that what the world needs now is a Caliphate or One World Government, is pathetic in their approach to understanding of humanity.  As soon as the first tribe of humanity looked around and noticed that they were sharing the planet with others who were different, the stage was set for conflict and conquest that will never be eliminated.  If history teaches nothing else, it should at least teach us the difference between conquerors and the conquered. 


This is where America, with her European roots and expansive and unique thinking are different, though, and it is time that Americans embrace that difference whether the rest of the world does or not.  I’ve heard it said that America goes along with ruthless dictators because we do not expect some people to be capable of self-rule, and therefore our way of government wouldn’t work everywhere.  Obviously, many of our own “rulers” and elites feel that we can’t even be expected to rule ourselves effectively, and therefore we need more and more socialism thrown into our own government.  The absence of a preponderance of moral evidence precedes such thoughts.  What they should be saying is that immoral people are incapable of self-rule.  Period.  That is, after all, what our Founders actually said.


Now the problem comes with trying to define morality.  I don’t know why.  This one is so easy that it literally escapes the minds of the great thinkers I guess.  Moral people do not do things to other people that they would not want done to themselves.  Christians call that the Golden Rule.  Few live by it.


The situation in Egypt is serious, and it is commanding much media attention, and it is showing a great deficiency in American foreign policy.  It is showing such a great ignorance by the current administration that it is truly pathetic. 


Liberal blowhards, such as those great Hollywood experts and liberal, as well as some so-called conservative politician and media types, who seek a microphone to tell the world that they shudder to think of the likes of a Palin or a Bachmann with access to the nuclear trigger, show their ignorance.  They are probably the same ones that either enabled or voted for the current administration, and thus, placed the trigger in the hand of a dangerous revolutionary.  Forty per cent of the American people are still fine with that, if we are to believe most of the polling data.  But consider if it were Palin or Bachmann in charge of American foreign policy right now – both are in touch with the American people who get it – the whole morality thing.  They both have a finer understanding of American history and our moorings in liberty.  Neither of them thinks of the United States Constitution as an antiquated document of negative liberties.  They know that the Constitution was not penned to support government liberty, but instead they know that it was penned for the explicit reason to limit government and support individual freedom.  The blowhards have no concept of this.


Conservatives also know that revolutions happen as a last resort from within – not organized from external disruptive forces.  The only successful foreign policy in dealing with the Egyptian situation, as well as all the others that have sprung up lately, would be to ask and answer the simple question:  What is in America’s best interest, and where are the greatest returns on any investment we can make for our own security?  Certainly not by publicly admonishing a thirty-year ally and supporting ruthless extremists who hate us and threaten us every day with the promise of death to us and our other allies.


Okay, all you “smart” people out there – tell me where I am wrong.           



Home    Rant Page    Email DebV